 Everyone welcome to the August 6th, 2020 meeting of the historic preservation commission. Meetings are being held remotely due to the governor's safer at home order. So everyone can watch the meeting live stream. And we'll have a little post on that here in a second. So go ahead and call roll commission, excuse me, commissioner hardies. I'm here. Oh, thank you. Commissioner Gau, Commissioner Lane. Here. Commissioner Norton. Here. Commissioner Goon. Here. Commissioner Bagwell. Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. Thank you. So our next item on our agenda is the approval of the June 2020 meeting minutes. We did not have a meeting in July. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, so then moving on, we've got a report from the chair, which is basically my time to note that anyone wishing to speak during the public invited to be heard or the public hearing component of the meetings will need to be watching the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. Instructions will be given during the meeting such as what's on the screen now and displayed on the screen when it's time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with comments. And then please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. If you do have any technological troubles or need to leave the meeting, please contact Maria, Jade, or Jane via emails or the number 303-774-4308 to regain access to the meeting. Okay, that's all I have, nothing further on that. So our next item on the agenda will be communications from our HBC liaison. Hi, everyone. So great to virtually see you all. I just have a few items from the time in between our last meeting in June. We did a few administrative COAs. 438 Collier wanted to remove the paint on the exterior to expose the original brick. So that's a really great project. 824 Fourth Avenue wanted to repaint their home. It was looking a little shabby, so they used a very similar color palette. 812 Third Avenue replaced a little bit of siding on the front, and they used the exact same siding. So those were the three approved COAs administratively. I wanted to report back after our June meeting, 917 Fourth Avenue, as most of you remember, was an application for tax credits. And finding out that the garage was not part of the designation made that ineligible for the tax credits. And so I was going to check on whether or not the repainting alone would qualify, and it does not, after checking with History of Colorado. So I just wanted to report back on that. The last thing, obviously not this meeting, because it's not on the agenda, is we kind of have a packed meeting tonight. I'd like to continue our conversation on tax credit review after our very nice presentation from Erica with History of Colorado last time. So I think perhaps in September, we can continue the conversation on what that looks like for us as a CLG. So that's all I have for you. Okay, thanks. Any questions for our staff? Seeing none. So this is our public invited to be heard component of the meeting. This would be for anything that is not on the agenda later on. So if there's anyone out there in the audience that would like to bring something to the HBC's attention, now would be the time. So we will take a five minute break and have the instructions posted on the live stream. Commissioners, if you could mute your mics and turn off your cameras during this time. Okay, back in a minute. Commissioner Carpenter, this is Susan. When we resume, we'll go ahead and check your mic. Thanks. We'll give our live feed about 30 minutes to catch up, and then we can begin. Chair, it looks like we have one caller in our waiting area. All right, that's been about five minutes. I can begin when you are all back. Chair, I'm ready to begin when you are. Okay, great. So it does sound like we do have a one speaker for our public invited to be heard. And so now we'll turn the floor over, the floor as it were. Please again, as a reminder, state your name and address before you begin. And you have, there's three minutes. Okay, the first caller I'm going to unmute is ending in 089. I've unmuted you. I think we have one. Hello. This is Sarah Levison, 634 Emery Street in Longmont. Can everyone hear me? Yes, we can. You may begin. Thank you. I'm a resident of the Historic Eastside neighborhood, former council member and former liaison to Historic Preservation Commission. The topic that I'd like to bring forward to the commission today is something not on your agenda. It is the matter of 830 Emery Street. 830 Emery Street has a sign in front of the yard that simply indicates a ADU is being added to the property. In truth, that's not the whole story. The property will in fact have a new ADU. However, it is not going to be the structure it was. Basically, the structure will be demolished, except for two small pieces of wall. And effectively, it is a demolition of both the interior and the exterior of the property. And looking up the demolition paperwork, I see that there's quite a bit of a flaw that someone could simply not check the box, that it's 50 years or older or, as this property is, within the original square mile of the town. I would actually like the commission to be able to pick this up and take a review of it. The neighborhood has contacted the city. In fact, as a courtesy, Planning Department was going to be notifying the neighborhood association, the longest organized neighborhood in the city, of new development applications and ADUs. And in fact, the city never received notice of this ADU application. We have been working very closely with the city for maybe 30 years or more on historic preservation and the great look we have in the neighborhood. As a final remark, I would like to remind everyone that next year is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the city of Longmont. And historic east side was the very first neighborhood in that. And as a reminder, it would really be nice if we could see what the city was and have a large group of homes and structures that represent the original town, rather than have to just look at things in pictures because we don't have structures left. The neighborhood really would like to discuss what demolition looks like in this town because effectively the structure will be demolished. The neighbors who got the notice within 300 feet were not even given any information except about that there was going to be an ADU. They assumed that the rest of the house was going to be there. I think they may have called and one said that they were told there was going to be an addition. If you can review the paperwork, you'll see this is simply not an addition. It's basically taking the entire structure down except for two small portions of wall and then resurrecting a very large two-story home. And then again adding a new garage and then an ADU over the garage. So those are my comments. The neighborhood would like to engage with the commission more frequently on issues. It seems like there's been again some lack of communication between staff and the city. And I realize Karen Bryant, who we had a close working relationship, is not with the city anymore. And we had a little bit of a lapse there. But I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Okay. Well, I certainly appreciate you calling in and bringing that to the commission's attention. Ms. Krueger, are you aware of any of this? Or are you able to comment? Yes. Staff was made aware of the 830 Emery Street Project because it is a contributing structure. We are currently reviewing the application now. So thank you to the Historic Eastside Neighborhood Association. We greatly appreciate your comments and your assistance with the Cultural Resource Survey. And we'll be reviewing that. So thank you. Thank you. So do you expect that that might be something on next month's agenda for the HPC? I can't say. I do know that because it's not a landmark and it is contributing, we will review it in terms of compatibility and in terms of the demolition permit. But in terms of an agenda item, I'm not 100% on that. Chair, I'm going to put the caller into the waiting room. And if the caller would like to call back at another public invited to be heard, opportunity they can. Okay. Thanks. Ms. Norton, did you have a comment or question? Yeah, I did. And it was for Ms. Krueger. I think that I personally would like to have an update on the direction that this is going and to understand what they were applying for, what exactly it is that the city is reviewing and how the Eastside neighborhood's concerns and comments are being met and considered in that application review. Yes, I'm happy to do an information item on this project as well as just the review in general. I can work on that and get it over shortly. Yeah, I think that would be a good idea to do that. And I know we've got a lot of new commissioners and there was a time where we took a look at what our demolition code standards were in the city. I think it would be a good idea to revisit that and just make everyone here aware and good refresher for me and anyone else on this for a little bit about what exactly our processes and where we have teeth and where we don't. So if we can put that on a future agenda item for a future meeting, I very much appreciate that. Any other questions or comments about this particular item? Nope, seeing none again, thank you for the call in. So we will move on to new business and our first order of business is a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for 207 Bowen. So Ms. Kruger, would you like to give us a staff report on that please? Certainly. I'm sure most of you are familiar with this property as it just went through a COA application June of 2019. But 207 Bowen Avenue is the Beckwith Barn. The house on this property was designated in 1985. The barn and outbuildings were designated after that in 2017. So the barn is currently vacant and seeking to repurpose the vacant barn into an ADU. So again, the owner received a COA in June of 2019 for the project, but then needed to make some alterations to the design and so therefore is back for a new COA. So in the packet, I have included elevations that I labeled first approve a proposal existing as well as new proposal to help kind of showcase the changes that they're making. But essentially the things that are changing are the size of the windows on the west elevation, an additional window unit to the north, an additional window on the east, the front door on the south side, and the dormers on the south elevation seem to have changed a little bit in style from gables to a shed. Appearance. So again, those are in the packet if you're looking for more visualization. On this project, we received several public comments. I sent an email earlier today, I think around 2pm after I had compiled the most recent ones I received from Monday of this week through Wednesday. But I did also know a separate comment that I received much earlier under the public hearing notice and posting section of your packet. There's a general concern about where parking will be designated for this barn. I've let every public member of the public who's commented about parking on this application know that this is just a COA for approval from going from a vacant barn into an ADU. And so once, if and when this is approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, this will still need to go through a planning review where parking can certainly be addressed there. But I just wanted to note that most who have commented about parking would like for the applicant to consider creating parking on the north side of the structure. So, and again, the additional comments are related to believing that the barn, the new design is potentially radically changing the appearance of the barn and therefore perhaps not as historic as they would like to keep the structure. So again, I've sent those by email and if anyone didn't receive those, please let me know. Staff would recommend the commission move to approve the COA for this application with the condition that the applicant just approve all manufacturer and materials and makes of windows and doors before work commences. Okay, so do we have any questions for staff, Commissioner Bagwell? I'd just like to point out that if you're looking at the, can you hear me, the new proposal the first approved proposal existing, the north and south elevations are flipped. So you have to, it's not, you're not looking at. That makes sense. If you see on the first approved proposal on the left hand side, it says existing south elevation and then below it the existing north elevation. On the new proposal, the existing north elevation is at the top on the left hand side and the south elevation is on the bottom. So you have to kind of, when you're looking at those you just kind of have to flip them to make sure you're looking at apples to apples. Thank you. Any other commissioner questions for staff? Okay, I don't see any. So at this point we will give the applicant an opportunity to make a presentation if they so wish. You should be able to unmute yourself now. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Oh, this is John. Can you, can you turn on your video? There you are. Great. You may begin. Yeah, we just decided that the windows that originally were approved were going to be too small. They won't let in enough light into the structure and we just wanted to try to get some more light into the barn. And the style of the door that we originally chose was, we didn't feel like it was in keeping with the barn. So we wanted to instead of having the side lights we were going to do something different. All right, as you can see on the drawing. And we did switch architects. The initial drawings were, well, kind of subpar. And guys, Stevenson, he drew up some new plans and had some really good ideas that some of the head heights weren't working on stairwells and whatnot. So he retooled that. Thanks. Do we have any permission or questions for the applicant? Now that we have them. Commissioner Guy. Going on the, of the building. So I leave that opens into the alley. Are those just kind of false doors? Yes, they're just that. They're just a faux door, just the. Okay, much more in keeping with the style of the buildings. And hopefully we'll put it in. The original, sorry, the original, it wasn't, he was an engineer. He wasn't an architect that did the original drawing. So yes, I think we moved it up a couple of matches. Any other commissioner questions for the applicant? Don't see any. I have one staff did make a mention about the windows. Can you speak to the type of windows that you intend to install as the new windows? We were looking at a true divided light wood window that is similar to the window that's in the eve of on the west side of the barn. It's currently in the barn. So it's be a true divided light window. Windows. I think we're going to, I don't know. We could ask Guy what, or John what, what windows they'd suggest. This is Guy Stevenson here. I did the most recent submittal. We haven't picked a window manufacturer yet, but there's a number of them that do a highly insulated true divided light wood interior and exterior. That's the plan. We just don't have, we have not picked a manufacturer yet though. Okay, great. That's fine. And that's all I was really looking for, you know, on the drawings. It's hard to tell whether, you know, these muntin patterns are, you know, intended to be just between the glass or a true divided light, like you mentioned, and there's a giant difference. So definitely not between the glass. Thank you. So true divided. So that's basically, I think what my expectation would be in terms of the staff taking a look at that, if it's on that level, then pretty comfortable. Great. Would it be okay to do a clad exterior? Or do you want to see a painted wood exterior? I don't know. Do any comments from the commissioners before I throw my I don't know what a clad. I don't know what that is. Well, a wood window, if it was a true wood window, it would be painted wood on the outside of the window. If it's a clad window, it's actually aluminum that's been painted at the factory. Aesthetically, I think they look exactly the same. The only difference is that the paint on the cladding lasts forever. The paint on the wood needs to be repainted every couple, three, four years. Thanks. And I did just find some pictures of that as well. So thank you. Commissioner Norton. Sure. I actually don't agree that they look exactly the same. I put a new window into my own home this summer and chose a wood exterior because I wasn't thrilled with how the clad windows looked in a historic house. So I would recommend if it's an option to go with the full wood interior exterior. Okay. Any other commissioner comments or questions? Yep. Commissioner Guy. You look the same, but after a small amount of weather wearing, they typically do not look quite the same. But also, I would look to what is largely in the building. So our expectation is that you would replace things in kind. So if the original windows were wood windows, then that's what the expectation would be that you would replace them. Okay. Well, unless there are any other comments or questions, I will go ahead and open up the public hearing component of this agenda item. So if there's any folks out there that would like to comment, we'll put the instructions up on the screen. We'll have a five minute break and then we'll queue everyone up. Again, if the commissioners, if you can turn your mics and cameras off while we wait for everybody to get on board, we'll see you back here in five minutes. Commissioner Carpenter, before you mute yourself, can we test your mic again? You're coming in a little difficulty here. Yeah, I have it on right now. I thought it was the wrong person. Sorry, Commissioner Carpenter. It was Gayu. Okay. Let me get myself in. Commissioner Gayu, can we test your mic again? Okay, Chair, I'm going to stop sharing. We'll give our live stream about 30 seconds more to catch up to where we're at. If everyone could come back on, that would be appreciated. And Commissioner Gayu, can we check your mic? You were coming in a little quiet and hard to hear. Yes. Is there any way that you can move your camera mic a little closer or sit closer? Try again. Much better. Thank you. Chair, we have no one for this public hearing item. Okay, great. Okay, well, then I'll close the public hearing portion of this item and I guess open it up to commissioners for any further discussion. Seeing no one. I will say from having been involved in the even back to the very earliest applications for this property that in a series of moves over the last couple of years, we've arrived at a much more palatable looking product than where we very much, where we started out. So I certainly appreciate the efforts taken. With that said, I'll entertain a motion. So I have a motion and a second. All in favor of approving the certificate of appropriate misapplication for 207 Bowen. Now, just to be clear, are we approving this as proposed by staff? In other words, with the condition that the staff gets to review and approve the window specification? Is that your intent? Commissioner Galli? All in favor. Okay, perfect. And the second is still okay with that? Okay, perfect. So moved and amended. And second, sorry. All those in favor? I and I, okay, looks like we passed unanimously. So there we have it. Congratulations. Thank you. Okay. So then we will move on to item six B, which is a certificate of appropriateness application and a preliminary tax credit application for 710 Martin Street. With respect to this property, I actually had some professional involvement. And so I am going to need to recuse myself in this portion of the hearing and turn this particular set of proceedings over to our vice chair, Commissioner Gallio. So during this time, I will unmute and turn my video off. And then I'll jump back in once this, when six B is completed. Thank you, Commissioner Gallio. All yours. Maria, can you jump in? Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah, we could go ahead and start with the staff presentation. Great. I will jump right in then. So 710 Martin Street, I'm sure most of you are quite familiar with this property as it was designated just this past year in 2019. This is the Cordova Anaya house that was owned by Jeff Cordova and his parents, Joe and Ramona Anaya. Before this home was designated in November of 2019, it was vandalized. Therefore, some of this work, such as removing the rear porch or mud room, needed to happen before the COA just so that they could secure the home itself. So this application is for a COA for quite a bit of work. If you turn to page two of your packet, I've listed all of the alterations in detail, and the applicant has provided some very good photos before and after of the property. So we've got the COA, and we also have the tax credit application. I was able to, on page four, break down all of the work and the qualified costs that were provided by the applicant to come up with a total of $97,880 in some change for the total eligible for the tax credit, making that credit if approved $19,576.15. I received no public comments related to this project, and after staff review, we would recommend the commission move forward of the approval of the COA and the tax credit application with one condition, just that the applicant confirm paint colors with staff before repainting the exterior. And I'm happy to answer any questions, and I believe the applicant, Ms. Louch, is also on the call today. I couldn't tell if the siting that's proposed is going to match the dimensional characteristics of the existing fiber cement siting usually has a wider spacing to it. It has vinyl siting on it. So the original siting is no longer in place. So it's probably reasonable. The preference of it could be that they would replace it with wood going back to the storage material, but that's not a requirement. None of the original siting is remaining, is that what you're saying? That is true. Out of the original and the proposed layout, would be whether the kitchen and the front bedroom could be switched so that the bathroom could be at the back of the property rather than quite visible from the front facade of the building? I'm not exactly sure. I'd have to review it with the architect, but the way the the interior is laid out right now, we only have to take one wall down to make that interior, the kitchen and dining room and living room all work together. Whereas if we start moving the kitchen, then we'd have to move more walls. So that was the reason that we chose to do it the way we did. It would just be instead of removing the wall between bedroom three and the kitchen that's currently there, you would just be removing some of the wall of bedroom one to probably create an opening between that kitchen and the living room seem to be spaces of very similar size. There's also the problem that this is part of a larger development project, and there is a series of townhouses behind the building. So there's not a whole lot of space behind whereas in that side yard where the bathroom currently is there's more space. Okay. Are you maybe interested in doing some landscaping that would kind of Absolutely. Absolutely. And then as far as that bathroom goes, are you switching the direction of the siding or anything on that? What is the siding going to look like? It's going to remain the same as it is so it'll blend in with the rest of the house. Additional questions? Yes, Vice Chair. I'm ready when you are. Hearing none. Let's move to the public hearing. So you should see on your screen the information for you to give us a call. If you'd like to speak on this particular public hearing item, we will leave this up for about five minutes and then we will return. All right, we're about ready to come back online. I'll give our viewers another 30 seconds or so. If you can begin to show your cameras, we'll continue on. And Vice Chair, that looks like it's been five minutes and we have no one in our waiting room. You may begin. I'd move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness for 712 Martensburg. I'll second. And I think I said 712 and I meant 710. Sorry about that. One moment if I might interject. We approve the COA. Are you approving the tax credit separately or was that motion for both the COA and the tax credit? It was meant for both. Agreed. Okay, can that just be amended into the record? Does that include the recommendation that the staff approve the paint colors? You know, actually, I don't know about that because it's preserved because of what happened there, not so much the historical significance of the house. So I'm not sure it's as important. Is it? The paint colors are listed in the packet, too. And I know we haven't visually seen them, but it sounds like they're going to pin them the same as they already are. Right. I'll maintain my seconds. I agree with Terry. All right, so we already voted on the unamended. So I think we're fine there unless you'd like another vote, Jay or Maria. That works for me. Thank you so much. Yes, that works. Thank you. So I believe that concludes 710 Martin. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Gallo, for leading us through that one. Okay, we'll move on to Item 6C, which is a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 719 Third Avenue. Ms. Kruger, would you give us your staff report, please? Certainly, Chair. So this is the Dr. John Andrews House. The applicant has applied for, had applied for, excuse me, and received a COA in 2012, essentially for the same work. However, after they completed some of the work, they had replaced some of the windows. They did not complete the porch enclosure because it has been two years since the COA was approved. We wanted to bring it back to the Commission for official review. So the application in front of you in your packet is solely for the Certificate of Appropriateness. However, the applicant does intend to apply for tax credits in the future once there's a better estimation of cost for this project. So I received no public comments on this project. And after review, staff would recommend that the Commission move approval of the COA for the installation of new double hung Pella 250 vinyl windows to fill the currently open area between the sill and the head of the porch walls, which would enclose the porch area. This area has been water has been leaking and causing damage. So the applicant would like to fix this issue as soon as possible. Staff would also recommend the following condition, just that we review and approve the building permit plans just to ensure that they demonstrate the new windows match the current style existing on the rest of the home. And the condition that the COA is also valid for two years if and when the COA is approved by the Commission. And I believe the applicant and the architect are on this call with us today. Great. Questions? Commissioner Gaye? Yeah, I guess I was a little bit confused by this because it appears that the original request was to remove enclosing the porch, to reopen it. And I see, I'm selecting supports, a kind of the packet that you sent. There's a photograph that shows the porch being enclosed with the proposal that is the open. So now they're asking to re-inflate the porch? If I could speak to this, my name is Tom Moore. I'm the architect working with the styles. I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but I believe that the styles did not make a previous application for a COA on this project. The previous owners did that. And the previous owners did a lot of modifications to this residence, including replacing all of the existing windows with a Pella product that we are now matching. Again, my understanding is that this particular, the prior application was supposed to do more to the sleeping porch and it was not done. The application that we submitted shows the existing porch view. It's simply an open porch with an oddly placed column that has some structural implications, but we are proposing to re-enclose this porch because it's not currently designed for any kind of weather mitigation. The styles have endured a lot of water damage and some mold issues because of the water that's able to get into the existing wall of this porch. And they really do need to make this work, get this work done before we have any much more rain. So the porch now is open. We do not know what happened to the original COA application by the prior owners that it did not get completed as approved. But now we want to come back in and put windows in that match the existing windows now that are on the residence so that there's a consistency of window element. Yes, that's correct. I apologize if I misspoke. The original COA from 2012 was not done by the current owners, the styles. Ms. Kruger, so just to clarify for all of us. So the original COA by the previous owner did involve removal of existing windows to open the porch and was approved and may or may not have been installed per the approved COA? That's correct. I'm not seeing what your proposal is. I see a picture of the open porch, a photograph of the open porch, and then I see existing east porch elevations, but I don't see any plans for what you're proposing. What is your look like? Do you have our exhibit sheet A1 that we submitted with our application for the COA? I have exhibit 71. I was going to ask the same question. So Ms. Kruger, do you have? I think we're missing some information. Exhibit 71, correct Tom? I submitted a sheet A1 that gave the existing porch view and a photograph and then a rendered porch view of the same view with our proposed enclosure. I don't know what you put in their packets. Yeah, we're missing that second sheet. You know, there's a chance, Tom, that what you submitted was for the tax credit application, and so I did not include that. I do have the exhibit 71, which is the existing porch view. I'm guessing then that that second elevation was not included in this packet for the COA. My apologies. Is there any way to post that? I don't know. Do we have the opportunity for Mr. Paul to share a screen if he has it? I mean, can we get this up for everyone to see during this meeting? Or if you have it from the tax credit stage, can you forward that to everybody? Yes. Give me just a moment here to look for it, and I can either email it to you all or try to screen share if that is appropriate. I agree, but if there's a way to get that done during this meeting rather than postponing the month, I would really like to do that. Well, we wait for that to be posted. I do have a question. So you say that you want to have new windows that fit with the other palace style windows that were put in. They put vinyl windows into this building? Yes, they are a vinyl plaid window is now what is throughout the house, throughout the residence. Thank you. I could share a screen view if we had the ability to do that. I'm trying to find the exactly. I'll give us just a moment. We'll see if Jade can pull it up, sir. Okay. Hey, Jade, have you been able to find that? I'm not sure. I have the right one, Tom. Can you please report it? Let me see if I can share my screen. I think I might. Is a sheet A1, Tom? Yes, it is. All right. Let me give that a shot. If you open it up first. Yep, there you go. Can you see that now? Yes, we can. That's it. Let me know if I need to zoom in at all. I just have one quick question. What's the material on the, well, I guess that's a porch section. So we're seeing kind of a beadboard material beyond? That's a beadboard that's on the interior of the porch that exists. Those are all existing materials, Chairman Lane. Okay. Thank you. So really the only work is truly the windows in that infill opening and then you're going to rework the header so that the windows have some sort of logical pattern to them. Yes, that's correct. Great. That's substantially helpful. And Commissioner Norton regarding your question, I was looking back through the 2012 COA and it looked like at that time the commission approved some window replacement. I'm not sure if they approved all window replacement. I know they wanted to keep some of the stained glass windows that were in the home and I think that did occur. I know that they approved for some of the replacement windows. It was a Pella aluminum clad window proline series, double hum. So I don't know if in between when that approval occurred and when the prior owner changed out that what was approved from what was actually installed. If that was the case, that's certainly unfortunate. Thank you for that clarification now. That's helpful. Sure. Okay. Well, we kind of jumped right into the applicant presentation there, but are there any other questions of the applicant or applicant's representative from commissioners before we open public hearing? I don't see anyone. Okay. So we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing portion of this item number. So for the, hopefully I think the last time here tonight, we'll all take a five minute break and wait for anyone who might be interested in commenting on this proposal to get online. Five minutes. All right commissioners, we're coming back on here. We'll give our live stream audience a few more seconds as I watch the screen disappear. All right, it just cleared and I see no one has entered or called in. Thank you. Well, with no one on the line, then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. So at this point, I guess if there are any further discussion from the commissioners and if not, we'd go ahead and entertain a motion. I would note that we do have staff recommendations for that motion for conditions. So while you're doing it, if you are interested in making the motion, please refer to those as you. And commissioners, just let me know if you want me to share my screen again on that particular sheet plan sheet. Okay, thanks. Any commissioners that would like to chime in with a discussion point? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I have a motion. Second. I have a second by commissioner Bagwell. So I have a motion and a second on the floor to approve the certificate of appropriateness application for 719 3rd Avenue. I'll take your vote. So I'll in favor raise your hand say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. And nay. None. So the motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your time. Take care. Okay. All right. Thank you all. We will move on to item seven, which is information and discussion items. Miss Kruger, do we have any of those? Oops. Sorry. My video there was going in and out. I don't have any for you this meeting, chair. All right. Very good. Then item number eight is commission comments from our HBC commissioners. Do any commissioners like to make a comment or a statement? Commissioner Norden. I will. Thanks. So I think next month when we are discussing tax credits, I would also like to see on the agenda us talk about kind of the direction of the commission. I know that last fall with a different staff member, you know, we were talking about different initiatives or directions that we kind of wanted to take preservation here in Longmont. And I kind of like to see us return to those conversations. We also had conversations around having historic preservation as part of the new zoning code, and that seems to have dropped off. And I'd also like to talk about our responsibilities as a CLG. I'm not sure that we're meeting those through our training. And so I'd like to have staff address all of these different issues and maybe have all of us have a conversation about what we're doing on the commission and what we'd like to see done with preservation in the city. Thank you, Commissioner Norden. I might just amend or add some comments so that if in case, especially if we have a heavy agenda, that that's that's an awful lot to cover. So I think it would be totally appropriate to sort of parse those out into a number of different meetings. But I would agree it would be a good idea to kind of circle the wagons and make sure that we're kind of revisiting our various roles and how we integrate with the city over the course of the next few years. Yeah, and I can agree with parsing that out as well. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm clicking too fast. I'll comments from Commissioner Bagwell first. I saw her for a hand first and then Commissioner Gay over. We need you to unmute. I'd like to add to Commissioner Norton's agenda. We have specialized funds dedicated to historical preservation from people that have applied and gotten credit through our commission. And we've never had a clear understanding if it's 15, 17, 20, how much money we actually do have that we could use to further the projects that we'd like to see accomplished. So I'd like to have a understanding of where that money is and how much money we do have at our hands. Okay. Thanks for those comments. Commissioner Bagwell, Commissioner Gay. Also, along the lines, I feel like those are some large topics that we rarely in-depth conversations with. And we have not had a board retreat or I think a lot of the people on this commission currently attended one. So we might consider that. I know it's not a great time optimal to do it remotely. But considering the kind of the weightiness of the topics, we might consider having a separate board meeting to discuss those sorts of things rather than trying to plan them into one of our monthly meetings. Yep. Thanks for those comments, Commissioner. And yeah, I think, I mean, with the weird time that we have right now, maybe it's worth a high level hit in the next handful of meetings to make sure that we at least touch on some of this in a couple of meetings and then see where our world goes in the next few months and maybe beginning of the year or something, if it looks like things have finally settled down, we could potentially get together and have a little more, I think it would be a lot more productive even in a room with people standing around far away from each other than this environment. But anyway, good points. Any other comments from the board? No. Thank you. We'll go ahead and take any comments we have from Mr. Rodriguez, our council representative. Thank you, Chair. Just as always, thank you for your service commissioners and thank you to the staff. And I hope everyone is doing all right and have a good rest of your week and a good weekend. See you next month. Great. Thank you. And unless there's anything further, then I will take a motion to adjourn. Motion. A couple of seconds for motion and some seconds. All those in favor, raise your hand. All right. Carries unanimously. We are adjourned. Thank you all for your time and see you next month. Thank you. Thanks again for sharing. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Bye, everybody.